The US Army, out of a Strategic Reserve

In June 2006, Rep. John 'Redeployment' Murtha suggested that the US Army had run out of its strategic reserve. Because of this, the US (Army) was – and still is – facing the identical circumstances, which ultimately forced the US (Army) to withdraw from South Viet Nam and finally from the "SE-Asia" ("Indochina.")

The war in Iraq was a "war of choice" (read: an illegal war of aggression): nobody attacked nor threatened the US with an attack. As no such attacker has emerged till 2006, in the strict sense the US wouldn't need a strategic reserve. The US military is unhappy, of course, but US Policymakers have shown they can live with that.

What they can't live with, has produced a crisis in the US Govt, as its very existence is based on “permanent war” (as it prefers to call it.) Would the war stop tomorrow, all the money flowing to the arms industry (and Army) would dry up immediately, and the US-UK-Israeli Finance-Military-Political Administration would collapse soon after. Besides, a large portion of these high-level criminals would end up in the Hague. One should not downplay avoiding these scenarios as a reason for the lost war going on and on and on.

Right after Murtha’s suggestion, the issue was involuntarily proven by Pentagon, forced to "re-enforce" Baghdad from inside Iraq, not from the US strategic reserve, thus showing it had drained, indeed.


"America's War" goads IDF to Lebanon

From the US leadership's point of view the sudden de-escalation (or possible end) of the war loomed after they had lost the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. If it mustn't stop, then you need a new war. Although there was no US strategic reserve, there war Israel, the attack dog. And then there was Lebanon with some Hizballah in it...

There you are: US leadership unleashed Israel, and hoped for the best. As always, the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush goaded war didn’t lead to the desired results, but the opposite.To the disappointment of the plotters, the war, far from becoming "permanent", lasted just over a month.
Militarily worse than that, the Israeli "Defence" Force was soundly beaten. Thus, not long after the US-UK-Israeli Army Group had broken its spear-head in Baghdad (compare "Stalingrad 1942"), the aggressor lost its last untouched reserve in the "Middle-East Front" in South Lebanon (compare "Kursk 1943"): Foolish war is the price to be paid for a costly withdrawal.

The story about the US-UK failure in Iraq is now openly circulated even by WPost & NYTimes, and both fiascos added to that of the Israelis have confirmed that the supreme US military leadership is not in the hands of professionals. This telling fact has in turn been correctly identified as a definite condition for losing a war, a disturbing scenario for the rest of the world and it has given birth to a "alternative movement" inside the US.

At this point there surfaced a leaked letter of the US Dems, showing that not only the US military, but the US Dems were aware of the draining of the strategic reserve claiming that a new change the direction of the war required. Needless to say, the people involved were now openly siding with Murtha and the US military.


Limits to the US-UK-Israeli Options at the ME-Front

What, then are the US possibilities of the management of the war? Before answering that it must be noted that after the failed "Lebanon War Re-dux" the Bush Admin are right back in the square one, needing desperately an "escalation", but strained from this by the limits of both the US-UK and Israeli Strategic Reserve:

(a) The "stay the course" program cannot be sustained no longer: the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot be won at the current levels of troops (nor with larger commitments.) The prognosis of success for “stay the course” is zero, as the draining of the US Strategic Reserve prevents rising the troop levels for the stage required for “staying” the course. Any talk of "staying the course" is delusional, this demanding more troops than there are.
On the opposite, the current US commitment in Iraq and Afghanistan is gnawing the US Army alive, as shown by a report published by the New York Times on August 17 on the latest Defense Department indices of the catastrophe in Iraq: the number of roadside bombs aimed mainly against American forces reached an all-time high of 2,625 in July, as compared to 1,454 in January. “The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels. The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time,” a senior Defense Department official told the newspaper.
It's still possible to save the US Army from annihilation, but to this end it's main bulk must be withdrawn from the combat zone Iraq.

(b) It's just among the possibilities to start a new "minor" ground war, not major one, for the US has not enough combat troops required for the latter. In the first case, all the combat troops possibly earmarked for a "new war" are taken from already over-stretched US assets in Afghanistan and Iraq, this making the US position there ever more difficult.

(c) It's possible to start a major aerial war, but this too has its limits: the war must not escalate "too wide". While a commitment of "minor" US ground troops is feasible in connection with an aerial war, it must not lead the US into a major ground war, for which it has no troops. This causes obvious limitations to the targets possible...


The Strategic Possibilities of the United States from Sept. 2006 on

Behind Bush vs. Murtha bi-polarism, there are five strategies the United States can opt (I-V) and some "not opted" possibilities (VI and VII) that may occur.

I. "Staying the course by backdoor drafts..."
This is the path Bush & Co. is hanging at the present. Because of the non-existent strategic reserve, the US Army is outnumbered by the Iraqi Resistance (aka "insurgency" aka "al-Qaida" – or both), the ratios and thus the situation worsening daily: the Resistance strenghtens and the US commitment diminishes: in Spring and Summer, the US army didn't "reduce it troop levels" from 150,000+ to 130,000 due to the US elections, but reduced in size, as this couldn't be avoided. A notable factor in decreasing the US Iraq Army is that the recruitment targets are not increased to account for the 500 or so troops lost to battlefield deaths and injuries every month.

To overcome the "thinning" problem US Administrators are using various cheats:

(a) Ad hoc lengthened tours: Many troops have had multiple tours in Iraq or Afghanistan. In June, the Alaska-based 172nd Stryker brigade was scheduled to return home after a year in Mosul, Iraq, when it was assigned to four more months in Baghdad in a push to improve security there."
Similar stories, such as this, are repeated in units throughout the US Army.

(b) In addition, so-called "stop loss" policies that protect the Army from losing people in high-demand specialties are freezing more than 10,000 soldiers in the service involuntarily and indefinitely. At times during the Iraq war, that number has risen to nearly 14,000.

(c) Backdoor draft: "The involuntary recall, the first for Marine reservists since the beginning of the Iraq war three-and-a-half years ago, was authorized by Bush on July 26. While the president’s authorization allows for a maximum call-up of 2,500 at any one time, it is open-ended. Repeated mandatory call-ups could involve many thousands more reservists in the coming months and years."

Already, the Marines had called some 5,000 troops voluntarily back into service. The Army has called back 5,000 soldiers from the ready reserves, most of them involuntarily, since Sept. 11, 2001.

These cheats come with the price: "Nobody knows when we are going to be able to start drawing down forces in Iraq," said Michael O'Hanlon, Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution. "This is not about the 'long war'. It is about Iraq."

Nobody wants there, while President tells to a White House press conference: “We’re not leaving Iraq so long as I’m the president.”

Some non-active duty soldiers have filed suit against the Pentagon opposing their renewed call-up. Expressing a growing sentiment among the troops, Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, told the Los Angeles Times: “You can send Marines back for a third or fourth time, but you have to understand you are destroying their lives.” He added, “The bottom line is: Everyone is exhausted."

This delaying action a.k.a. the "Oil Industry Plan" can only be temporal: if really followed, this course would gradually destroy the US Army, this in its turn resulting in a US defeat of some degree (from minor to devastating) in Iraq.
It has, however, some "attractions": especially for the present US Administration it is difficult to accept that all that the US has "built" in Iraq (including the and Puppet Army, Puppet Regime and the Civil War) would vanish. No easier is to lose the direct grip and control of the Iraqi Oil fields and industry.

II. US Draft
After Viet Nam in 1973, the plan was to dump the draft and count on volunteers backed by reserves and National Guard, as a special commission had told Nixon.

This commission's product is the present Iraq "Rumsfeld Plan" with light army for invasion and occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan.
Ironically, as the US is out of volunteers and reserves, the "light army" has reached its upper limit. The various cheats (with some described above) are not enough in the long run. The question, then is:

"Is it back to a (general) draft then?"

Something of the sort was said by William Cohen, a Republican and former Secretary of Defense under Clinton: "I'm not sure there'll be a draft. I think there should be a commitment to universal service. I think that only a few people are really committed to this war against terrorism and called. I think the American people have to be - understand - that we're all in this together. We ought to have a real call to national service to commit ourselves to some form of public service ...."

Not unlike is the following view: "The all-volunteer force is good for fighting short wars ... but this is the long war," said Bob Work, a senior defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington think tank.

Against the draft are the following factors:
(a) The draft is one of the issues in the US politics which is considered "too hot politically". Already unpopular Bush Govt cannot afford pushing any American male into the gates of Iraq"
(b) On the other hand, "the benefits of going to a small, all-volunteer force (versus the draft) are so great, nobody wants to change the rules and go back."
(c) If there's a draft, those involved must be trained: the US recruitment program has already difficulties to train those designed to Afghanistan and Iraq. The war gets nastier and more complex and demands longer training. You can't take the trainers but from the battlefield. And taken from there is taken from the front line. Basically, unless the US withdraws from Iraq, it is trapped to its current level of combat troops – draft or not.
(d) the looming DU-GI-scandal: as the US vets from first and second Gulf war have now began to organize themselves and started various legal cases against the US Army and Administration (and are winning these), it's clear that legal system has not collapsed yet, and that there's possibility that the truth comes out

III. The "Murtha Plan" (a.k.a. the "US Military Plan").
What the US Army, Marines, Murtha and some Dems) want is to:
(a) re-deploy the US troops (or at least the main bulk of these) outside Iraq, beyond the reach of the Iraqi Resistance, but no further (so not to "withdraw" them from the war nor the "ME Front".)
(b) form a new US strategic reserve by re-gathering it from troops withdrawn, not necessary on guard duties etc.
(c) give the US Army a break ("instead of breaking it"), avoid any US casualties, puppet the Civil War from outside Iraq, and "get the army back in shape"
(d) To increase the US troop levels from the present 130,000 to 180,000+ by removing considerable portion of these to training duties.
(e) Wait for a favorable situation and create the conditions for relaunching the war against Iraq.
The Democrats are Good Dogs. Faithful to 'Project for New American Century" –
just like the Republicans before them – they want to rebuild the America's defenses – outside America...

There are some difficulties in the "Murtha" Plan:
(a) The redeployment includes a large-scale withdrawal from Iraq, which is fiercely opposed by the those in Oil Industry (Bush & Co.), who would lose their grip at the Iraqi oil fields. Unless Bush & Co. decide to "strike elsewhere" (cf. IV and V below)

(b) To give the US Army a break, no additional wars are to be started – at least for the moment, which would de-escalate the ongoing US war. This, of course, is fiercely opposed by the Global Arms Industry, unless it's given a war elsewhere instead (cf. IV and V below)

(c) Redeployment of the US Ground forces from Iraq to the puppet countries around (possibly Kuwait, Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, etc.), is not politically easy, most likely not welcomed there even by local Puppet Govts: A sudden increase in US presence in any Middle-East country is a well known cause of revolt(ing).

(d) It's unknown whether the US would succeed in enflaming, supporting and controlling the Sunni-Shia Civil War from outside of Iraq.
(e) It's uncertain is whether the US-implanted Shia government and army structure would last, if the US withdrew and were not replaced by Iranian-friendly one. If such development takes place, the US is not able to re-enter the south Iraq in the future without a major war against Iraqi Shias. Certainly, any such attempt cannot be hidden under disguise of "bringing democracy & freedom" and is thus far more difficult to sell the people.

If the present military balance in the Middle-East could be maintained under Murtha Plan, no wars were started and the US Army "fixed", the plan would result in a "Temporary Defeat" (which might be turned into "Draw" or even "Victory" in future.)

IV. The Syria War Plan
The US Bush Govt. can attempt to disguise its defeat in Iraq by launching a major aerial war against Syria (to be compared to that of the bombardment of Cambodia). According to the US Amateur Military Leadership's (Cheney-Rumsfeld gang) supposition (false ;), it would be possible to strike Syria "from above" and "contain" this from Israel, Turkey and by the US Armed Forces in the Syria border (the possible part of Jordan and its effect to it in this is unknown.)

This option leaves (or "maintains") Iraq as it is (and possibly becomes), reinforcing the Syria border with US troops from other parts of the country and Afghanistan.

An aerial war against Syria has several setbacks:
a. Such a war will not give the US Army a break as required by Murtha (and the US military), which will ultimately lead to its breaking. It is only to be hoped that the Iraqi (Sunni) Resistance escalation resulting from attacking Syria will not develop into an all-out offensive, impossible to contain by the US forces available in Iraq without excessive casualties.
b. The Shias in Iran (as well as those Iraq and Lebanon) may also side with Syria, this possibly provoking war(s) between these and the US-UK-Israel-Nato Forces in the Middle-East Front. In the worst possible scenario a major
c. Due to the Syria connection Russia (and/or China) may involve in the war.
d. Most likely the US will lose all the international space of manouvering it still has left (much like the Israelis recently, that is.)

The result of such war range all the way from a "minor" to a "decisive" US defeat in the Middle East, the worst scenario most likely.

V. The Iran War Plan
A major ground war against Iran is impossible to win, easy to lose. Such a ground war, of whatever origin would most likely end in the destruction (or hasty withdrawal) of the US-UK Armed forces in Iraq. Most likely it would result as a major flammation of the war between Israel and the Hizbollah and Israel, the latter possibly also leading to destruction of the Israeli Armed Forces too. This must no doubt be called a "devastating defeat."

As a major ground war would most certainly follow (mainly in the Iraqi soil) from any kind of "aerial war" against Iran, also these are impossible, at least as long as the US Army in Iraq is held hostage by the Shias in Iraq, Iran.
It's however possible to create a hoax "Iran War Threat", launch a media war to covert the real target (read: 'Syria'.)

VI. Devastating Defeat of the US Armed Forces in Iraq
Besides the various US plans (I-V), it's possible that the US Armed Forces in Iraq face a devastating defeat. Such result could be caused by several factors, the most important of these being:

a. The Defeat of the US Armed forces and/or their withdrawal in Iraq, beaten back by the (Sunni) Iraqi Resistance. Such development is perhaps not too far away, as a withdrawal (called "redeployment") is exactly what the US Military and Murtha are plotting at this very moment: a plenty of things can go wrong in such a retreat, in the worst case this destroying the US Army in Iraq.

b. The Syria "Air War" could backslash in several ways: to put it short, everyone opposed to the US War Administration in the world will make his best to stop the US effort there: As practically everyone in the area or otherwise globally significant is involved (US, Syria, Turkey, PKK, Iraqi Sunnis, UK, Iraqi Shia, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, Nato, Russia, China, UN...) several of these are likely to simultaneously push their own efforts against the US-UK-Israeli-Nato war coalition. Taken that several US-opposed countries enter to the ground war, the US-UK-Israeli forces may well suffer a decisive defeat as a consequence of the "Syria Air War."
c. If any war against Iran is launched (or provoked), and the US Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, deployed as they are, are most likely beaten, destroyed or driven back, and thus permanently lost.

VII. A true and complete withdrawal from the entire Middle-East.
This, a sort of "unilateral surrendering" would be dressed as a gesture of good will, and as a gesture of good will it would be seen throughout the world.
This would mean that the US Quest for the Global Domination would be over, which would immediately result as a better world, thus earning the US some long-lost credit.
Such outcome would leave both the US Army and the country beaten but intact as the US would still able to defend against any attack.

This option is called the "draw": a war that no party could win without heavy losses. However desirable this may seem to the ordinary people in the world, it's not the wish of any of the parties in power, whose interests are rather as follows:
§I "Staying the course – by backdoor drafts" (the Oil Industry & GOP)
§II "The General Draft" (the war Hawks)
§III "The Murtha Plan" (Some Dems & US Military)
§IV "The Syria Aerial War" (The Arms Industry, Cheney)
If it’s up to those in power in the US, no peace is to be expected before the US Army has faced a decisive defeat in Iraq.

To occur the Peace option would demand a coup inside of some group (the GOP, the Dems, the Military, the Oil, Arms Industry etc.) in US itself. Although not likely, one cannot rule out a people's movement, as certainly has not been done by the Bush Govt: the switching of US into a military camp is part of preparations for an internal conflict. They are to weaken them to make them less resistant, when the war comes home.


The US Options and the November Elections 2006

1. The US has broken into several diverging sections:
(a) The Global(-US) Arms Industry, headed by the "secret" president of the US, Dick Cheney), wants more war. The target bringing in the most cash with the lowest risk is Syria (Plan IV).
(b) The Global(-US) Oil Industry wants to stay in Iraq (plan I), and if necessary for sticking there, start an Aerial War against Syria (plan IV) and/or make a general draft (Plan II).
(c) The Murtha Plan (n:o III) calls for withdrawal and redeployment of the US forces and re-building the US Defences Abroad;
(d) The US Peace (Anti-War) Camp is for the "Peace Plan" (n:o VII)

2. As the interests of the groups (a) and (b) are partly unified, the and the party (d) being insignificant compared to the war parties, the path the US takes in the future depends on the "outcome" of the US November election:
(a) If the Republicans win, the GOP “compromises” with the Dems (by “dropping Iran (Hoax)”, and the US adopts the Syria Aerial War Plan: this leaves the US Armed Forces right in the middle of all-out escalation of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and leads to their devastating defeat.

(b) If the Democrats win, the US adopts a watered form of Murtha Plan, redeploying some half of the US troops and fortifying others in Iraq, attempting to increase the US troop levels with this "compromise". The attempt is likely to fail and both the us Army become defeated.

(c) The 'victory' of the elections may be difficult to predict, as the Republicans are most likely planning the Syria Aerial War as their "October Surprise", i.e. provoking this war as their election campaign: if so, we'll witness a "Syria-Based Hizballah Terror Strike (or Attempt) against the US, Israeli Soil", a breaking of war in Golan and the US involvement responding to Israel's call of mutual help. The national emergency may be declared due to the "terror attack", and the draft inserted (in a hideous form of "XX" or alike.)

3. As the all the significant US parties are heading to more war (defining the direction differently), it is no wonder that Senator Hagel said: "We have no good options." All the US military options in the Season beginning from Sept. 2006 are defeats: the "US-UK-Israel Armed Group" cannot achieve a "strategic victory" of any kind in the Middle East Front. On the opposite, rejecting categorically the draw (i.e. "Peace Plan" I,) it can only lose: whether the defeat will be "moderate" (in some form) or devastating (leading to the destruction of the US-UK-Israeli Armed Forces Group in the Middle East) will be determined first by the course of the US Election, then by the strength of the counter-effect.


Artcle now complete. URL below - ed